All the tricks have been tried in India-right from bribing/coaxing/threatening tv channels by giving their journalists national awards/land/money etc., bribing voters with booze on polling day but nothing seems to be working. The Election Commission and Team Anna are not letting any of these startegies work. Can we have some India specific tricks please?

>> Tolerate small, ill-funded opposition outlets (not least so that you have an idea yourself of what is going on).

In Russia, the opposition is small not because that's how they are tolerated, but because they are neither constructive nor appealing. Most of them have been in power before (Kasyanov, Nemtsov, Ryzhkov, Gorbachev, Milov...) and they brought nothing but poverty, cultural degradation and made Russians ashamed of their country.

Interestingly enough, it is only called conspiracy theory when the opposition is accused of promoting foreign interests:

>> It will offset the complaints from those foreigners who, your television channel can argue, are secretly bent on doing your country down.
>> Your propaganda machine should also highlight the opposition’s foreign links, making them look disloyal and alien.

For illustration, here is an example of how to avoid getting into conspiracy theories:

>> A sophisticated twist on this is to create your own tame opposition parties, in several flavours.
>> If ballot-boxes are used, make sure they can be stored overnight in a discreet location where, if all else fails, you can add and subtract votes as necessary.

They forgot to write: "then buy the observers from all the parties so they agree to sign all the 95 000 election protocols (that will be posted on the Internet, so anybody can do the counting). Also, buy the opponent parties so they give pre-election polls and exit-polls compatible with the desired results. And buy 40 million Russians too so they vote for you".

When I finished the article I thought the author must have interviewed a few Thai politicians until I came to the comments section and find that this applies to many countries' politicians too. God really makes them alike.

I found myself identifying the article most closely with Vladimir Putin myself, which adds on an interesting after-thought. Given Mr Putin's current troubles when he does most of these things, what changes do you have to make to make sure you're in flawlessly the third or fourth time, without people getting sick of you?

I must say everything in this article appears to be in the play book of Canada's Primeminister Stephen Harper.
The item which seems to stand out the most is his one million dollars attack on Michael Ignatief which began long before the elections were call in 2011. The basic premise behind the attacks was that he was not a true Canadian because he had spent so many years abroad. The attacks worked, and the Liberal party feel to pieces.

And who renounces to set up this kind of circus will be bomb by the "civilized world".But more than that ,the "elected" by the people become the most despised by the people.Such in US,the leader of the free world ,the Congress work satisfy only 11% of American population.And as a matter of facts everyone knows that the "elected"were elected with the money of the riches and will serve the interests of these 10%,so that only 10%of population appreciate Congress job has a simple explanation.And , again, who is not going in this way will be bomb.For lack of enough space i don't mentions the exemples

What this illustrates is the gradual distortion of idealized (fair & equitable) democratic processes to fit narrow and increaingly authoritarian ends where the voting public legitimize the actions of the elected few. This is not new. Plato discusses similar distortions in The Republic. Unfortunately, in his analyses, democracies degenerate into tyrannies. Let's hope he was wrong.

1. Make sure the constitution allows voting only a very, very, very limited number of matters. In formal language, restrict the “target space” of options on which the People may vote.

For example, prohibit all voting except for the purpose of deciding which of several professional politicians will be granted a monopoly on legislative power.

2. Create an oligopoly of political parties which give the appearance of competition.

As a wise investment banker once told me: “Stephen, if you want to enjoy sustained rents, don’t get a monopoly. Get yourself an oligopoly. Even the dullest person will recognise a monopoly when they see one. But an oligopoly can go on for years.”

Very funny Morris.You are right, the article only describes Election Rigging 101.

In Election Rigging 201 you use the tricks you refer to and others as blatantly obvious to anyone who can distinguish the futility of having to choose between drinking Coca Cola and drinking Pepsi.This system is also known as 2012:Democracy in America.

Finally you get an even more complex way of rigging not the vote but popular will itself.You manage issues and expectations and twist popular will, but it is so cleverly devised even those living under it take little notice of its existence.This state of affairs is commonly referred to as the European Union.

The UK also practices it, but on an insular, somewhat plainer way, naturally.

Interesting article. I am not a political journalist nor an expert in democracy but I believe that the systems in place to day are not performing well. They push voters to think and decide with the intuitive and emotional part of the brain rather than using the human ability to reason. However who has the time to think deeply on the consequences of the programs offered by politicians.
Solution. I do not know , but we are still voting as we used to do some 300 years ago, when the capital was hours by carriage or train away,The internet and mobiles era will have to change the practice of democracy. Perhaps the electronic referendum on precise issues.?
Or more regionalization? We certainly need more participative democracy. But I would also suggest to raise the voting age, to over 26 to include more working people in the process. I still think that the Middle Age Italian republics or Greece where on;y the land lord could vote was not a bad idea.We could update this.
However politicians will resist any change in this direction, as well a lobbyst.